They're doing terrible. But I guess I really don't expect anything less. The country's being driven into the ground by the Democrats, ever since they took control of Congress in 2007, with their excessive spending, power, and control. Since when does the federal government succeed at anything? So why give them more control and put our faith and trust in them? All these big government solutions are complete and utter failures...always have been, always will. And I'm not denying that Bush spent too much either, including in Iraq...but hey, at least he was smart enough to give people tax cuts to keep the economy moving and promote job creation through business tax cuts and focusing on small businesses.

And I'm not denying that Bush spent too much either, including in Iraq...but hey, at least he was smart enough to give people tax cuts to keep the economy moving and promote job creation through business tax cuts and focusing on small businesses.

Riiight. How are them tax cuts working now? Creating jobs not really. The loosening of credit did all that. Where was bush when he checked out in summer and fall? By doing nothing he made things worse.

The World War II thing comes up quite a bit as the thing that brought us out of the Great Depression. World War II was direct government spending that increased the national debt by around $10 trillion in today's dollars, after the roughly $3 trillion that was spent over the preceding 10 years for the New Deal. So, getting out of the Great Depression required roughly $13 trillion in spending in today's dollars.

I don't think we need that much since most of the spending that we need to do is eat the cost of past sins by fixing the banking sector (probably $2 trillion or so to get a functioning banking system again, along with some increased regulation and washing out of most of the current banks), and the rest will not be "throwaway dollars" like war money is - that is, it will be money to invest in infrastructure for future productive times (A dollar in war spending is probably equal to about 50 to 60 cents in infrastructure spending, since that spending is for stuff that will continue to be used). We probably need another $2-3 trillion there, which puts the cost at getting out of this debacle at somewhere around $5-6 trillion (I'm including some of the stuff already spent). The problem isn't deficit spending in times like this. It's deficit spending in times like the 80's and the last 5-6 years, when it wasn't needed to prop up or spur the economy.

Worries about people not buying our debt? Meh. The vast majority of our debt is owned by us. Heck, more than half is owned by our government and sits in the Social Security Trust Fund, the Medicare Trust Fund, and on the balance sheet of the Fed. China owns a trillion. Whoop-tee-do. Social Security owns more than $3 trillion.

From 2001 through 2006, even with record low inflation, non-defense discretionary spending grew at a rate of 35.7%—the highest rate of federal government growth since the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. So, I'm not sure where the perception of "excessive" spending by Democrats comes into play.

Also, the income gap has been steadily growing since 1979 and this is at the core of a lot of the current administration's efforts - to help close that gap. Since 1979, lower paying jobs have failed grow at an appreciable rate while income for those that occupy the top 20 percent of earners has expended significantly. For example, in 1980, executive officers of the largest US corporations earned 42 times as much as the average American worker, a ratio larger than the corresponding ratios for such countries as Japan and Germany even today. By 2000, however, American CEOs were earning 531 times the average worker's salary. The gains have been even larger for those above CEOs on the income ladder.

Clearly, this has been a pattern supported by Reagan, Bush the Elder, both Clinton administrations and Bush the Younger. I'm not suggesting its a Republican problem, but, to me, this largely conservative ideology that making sure that these very wealthy people and their corporations can keep more of their earnings (while shifting the tax burden they bore to the middle class, which is what has happened) in the hopes they will create more jobs, seems untenable. For every low-earning job (and increasing health care and housing expense) created, how much are these folks keeping? Job growth is not the same as income growth, either (we have more than enough low-paying, low-skill job options in Albuquerque, for example). More jobs does not mean fewer poor people, especially if there are fewer avenues for upward mobility. It means stagnation.

This idea that the rich will bless the rest of us with an hourly wage job at some call center if we let them keep a couple more hundred million is not a sustainable approach to economic growth, IMHO. Its time to reduce this gap and create better mechanisms for economic advancement among the populace.

We need to be lifting more people up together instead of piling increased wealth upon the top tier. One way to do this is to shift more of the tax burden back to those high earners and leave more in the pockets of the rest of us (because, yes, they used to pay more). And we should be tightening the loopholes that allow large corporations to hide money away internationally in avoidance of taxes (sometimes in cahoots with banking companies like UBS). Another is to control increasing costs that are causing lower and middle income earners to spend more of their paycheck on things like health care (my premium is going up 32 percent this year. They did the same last year). Yet another is to help open up new job sectors to allow for entrepreneurship and enterprise to create new opportunities for growth (and I'm thinking particularly of energy here).

Overall, this is the road the administration seems to be on, and I support it.

I don't understand why the knee jerk republicans are pretending as though defecit spending is some new problem that is all Obama's idea? Bush ran up the defecit like crazy and now that the economy is in the dumps it seems to me that turning the economy around is more imperative than solving the defecit

So we are just about halfway done with the first 100 days and I was wondering how you feel the Federal Government is doing?

Neither part right now has any clout in my book right now. Both of them are hell bent on increasing the size of government and making sure that they get re-elected. As for the comment that the GOP only looks to the past in another thread, President Obama wants to bring back the new deal and follow in the steps of Lincoln. Perhaps it would be better if he got out of the way and let capitalism run its course. While the GOP did not vote in favor of the 'spending bill' they did little to stop it. Sometimes you need to step in front of the tank to keep it from destroying a village.

I love how the Government wants banks to start lending and people to start borrowing money again. Umm, excuse me but I thought that was the major thing that caused this whole mess in the first place. A congressman from Texas said that Americans need to get on the Dave Ramsey plan. That is like a fat kid telling people that they need to eat healty, while waving a Krispy Kreme in one hand and a bucket of KFC in the other. Perhaps the federal government should live on common sense, you know, spend less than you make. But lets keep track of what they make and how they make it. That would be our taxes.

How much did you pay in taxes last year? Don’t just look at your W2 statements. Think about sale tax, hotel tax, gas tax, phone tax, and all the other taxes that are behind the price of most of what we buy.

Obama campaigned on Hope and Change and it seems like the more that he does, the worse off the economy gets. Look more into the stimulus bill, I (and many others) find state tax cuts, but temporary federal money to cover it. It would be like you selling your car because your neighbor promised to drive you to work for the week…. Ummm yea, great, but what happens next week?

The DOW is at lows not seen since 1997, investor confidence is at an all time low, foreclosures continue to increase, and people continue to loose jobs. Obama touted that the CEO of Caterpillar said that he would hire people if a responsible stimulus bill was pass. Well Obama’s bill was passed and they have not hired any new people. Maybe because the stimulus bill was not responsible and maybe because it has done nothing but hurt the economy.

Furthermore, everything that the democrats seem to control goes to complete waste and now they want to control healthcare. Do you want your inner city hospitals operated the way many inner city schools are operated. Were all the money goes to the state and then gets distributed to the hospitals based on the popularity of the representative in office? Some of the best hospitals in the country are in areas that have the worst school systems.

The new tax system (as proposed currently) would eliminate church and charitable tax deductions if you make more than $250,000. A recent economic review found that charities, non-profits, and similar agencies receive more than 90% of their annual fundraising contributions from those making more than $250,000, many of whom only do it for the tax write-off. Now who is going to be more hurt by this provision in the tax change… those making $250,000 or those charities and non-profits that depend on those contributions.

Overall, I can not think of one good thing that the Federal Government has done in the past 44+ days, and from what I see, it will not change.

How do you think the first 50 days have gone.

Normally I'm also a conservative like you (well, on economic issues anyway). I'm a big believer in capitalism, and 99% of the time, yes the free market works.

BUT.......remember that Herbert Hoover thought the same thing back in '29.......just let the market sort itself out, and things will be OK. Unfortunately we just spiraled further and further into what became known as the Great Depression. And needless to say this led to him losing in '32.

Sometimes I, as a HUGE Obama supporter, worry that he may veer us too far to the left as far as economic policies are concerned. I do worry sometimes that he may try to veer us too far towards socialism. But I also keep in mind that 1) these are tough times, and 2) neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism is good for anybody. The best economic system is one that incorporates elements of both, and in my own personal opinion, incorporates much more capitalism than socialism.

Believe me, I understand your concerns........I'm a capitalist through and through. But pure capitalism, left to its own devices, can leave an economy in ruins.

After reading many of the posts from yesterday, I want to post a new statement.

I have little to no faith to 99% of those elected or appointed at a federal level. Looking back over the several administrations, I loose even more faith in their competence regarding fiscal policy or government run programs.

I think that Congress and the Senate need significant overhauls including two term limits, elimination of voting for their own raises, and significant decrease in pay, since they take more vacations than a school teacher in July. I also think that they should be required a yes or no vote on all bills and failure to vote on a bill shall result deduction of salary.

As for the nonprofits often getting 90% of their contributions from those who make over $250,000, it is in a Cornell Study. I should also note that it is averages which also include religious, fraternal, and civic groups.

If you want different results in your life, you need to do different things than you have done in the past. Change is that simple.

The 'job-creating class' is those people, mostly running those companies (AKA 'small businesses') that far and away employ the largest number of people in the USA - and the very same people who are most in the tax-writing gunsights of those currently in power in the USA's Federal and many state governments (ie, here in Wisconsin). Take money from them and that is money that cannot be used to hire those people and expand local economies.

Remember that most small business owners file as individuals - their business income and personal income are one and the same.

The 'job-creating class' is those people, mostly running those companies (AKA 'small businesses') that far and away employ the largest number of people in the USA - and the very same people who are most in the tax-writing gunsights of those currently in power in the USA's Federal and many state governments (ie, here in Wisconsin). Take money from them and that is money that cannot be used to hire those people and expand local economies.

Remember that most small business owners file as individuals - their business income and personal income are one and the same.

Mike

There's just no data to back this up if you look at tax rates over time and compare that to corresponding job growth. It makes a good sound bite, but when you actually get down to it has very little basis in reality.

Remember that most small business owners file as individuals - their business income and personal income are one and the same.

Mike

You are right that most file as individuals. I've never had a small business, but don't most financial advisors and business advisors recommend that you incorporate into at least an LLC once you higher an employee? That way, you can seperate your personal incomes from business operations and shield your personal assets from litigation, corporate bankruptcy, and other catastrophies.

If most people aren't doing this, perhaps we need to educate them so they can more full take advantage of the tax credits and incentives available to them as an incorporated entity.

As for the nonprofits often getting 90% of their contributions from those who make over $250,000, it is in a Cornell Study. I should also note that it is averages which also include religious, fraternal, and civic groups.

I actually agree with making significant changes to the amount of tax-free money that can be given to non-profits. We're pretty much alone in the world in our blanket treatment of all non-profits being equal. One correction though - the change is to any amount given over $250,000 and has nothing to do with income. You can make $6 million or $250,000 - you just get to deduct the first $250,000 that you give.

The way it's set up now, we basically allow the very wealthy to determine where government money is spent. For example, someone makes $5 million (I'll use big round numbers in this and not the actual tax rates, etc - we'll assume a 35% tax rate) and decides to donate $1 million of it to a non-profit. That is depriving the government of $350,000, so it's essentially the same as the person donating $650,000 and the government tossing in $350,000. Because the vast majority of people are not wealthy, this gives a HUGE amount of power to the wealthy in determining what non-profit activities are worthy of being pursued and get the government money.

In changing this, we could set up a system similar to those in other places. A certain amount of donation is fully deductible (up to $250,000). After that, the amount that the government would not have received before is set aside and given out to non-profits via grants (similar to the way research grants are given out). The money going to non-profits doesn't change, but the types of entities getting it probably would. Any non-profit can apply for a grant, but you have to show what it's going to be used for and have a level of accountability, and no uses that conflict with the constitution would be allowed - for example, a Church school or hospital could apply for a grant, but using a grant for proselytizing wouldn't be allowed. For proselytizing, churches would still get the tax-advantaged money below the cut off and any money that someone wants to give after tax.

A person could still give any amount of money to any non-profit, the tax benefits just wouldn't be as great. IMO, we shouldn't be giving tax advantages that so clearly put the power in the hands of so few, even if many times it ends up being used for good.

I actually agree with making significant changes to the amount of tax-free money that can be given to non-profits. We're pretty much alone in the world in our blanket treatment of all non-profits being equal. One correction though - the change is to any amount given over $250,000 and has nothing to do with income. You can make $6 million or $250,000 - you just get to deduct the first $250,000 that you give.

The way it's set up now, we basically allow the very wealthy to determine where government money is spent. For example, someone makes $5 million (I'll use big round numbers in this and not the actual tax rates, etc - we'll assume a 35&#37; tax rate) and decides to donate $1 million of it to a non-profit. That is depriving the government of $350,000, so it's essentially the same as the person donating $650,000 and the government tossing in $350,000. Because the vast majority of people are not wealthy, this gives a HUGE amount of power to the wealthy in determining what non-profit activities are worthy of being pursued and get the government money.

In changing this, we could set up a system similar to those in other places. A certain amount of donation is fully deductible (up to $250,000). After that, the amount that the government would not have received before is set aside and given out to non-profits via grants (similar to the way research grants are given out). The money going to non-profits doesn't change, but the types of entities getting it probably would. Any non-profit can apply for a grant, but you have to show what it's going to be used for and have a level of accountability, and no uses that conflict with the constitution would be allowed - for example, a Church school or hospital could apply for a grant, but using a grant for proselytizing wouldn't be allowed. For proselytizing, churches would still get the tax-advantaged money below the cut off and any money that someone wants to give after tax.

A person could still give any amount of money to any non-profit, the tax benefits just wouldn't be as great. IMO, we shouldn't be giving tax advantages that so clearly put the power in the hands of so few, even if many times it ends up being used for good.

All that you are proposing is a transfer of the power in the hands of the private wealthy few to the oligarchical bureaucratic/legislative few. I may be alone in this, but we should encourage as much private charitable giving as possible, government be damned. I was in an argument once with someone who was criticizing the US for not giving as big a percentage of GDP in foreign aid as most industrialized nations, only to point out that with private charitable donations to foreign non-profit and humanitarian organizations the US puts the entire world to shame with foreign aid if it includes such private aid. I'm sure similar conclusions could be made of domestic aid.

If a person who has money wishes to direct his money to certain charities rather than let the government decide which social program his taxable portion would go to, by all means let the moneyholder/wealthy person decide. Charitable donations to charitable causes should never be construed or defined by the government as a tax loophole that needs closing. Ever.

All that you are proposing is a transfer of the power in the hands of the private wealthy few to the oligarchical bureaucratic/legislative few. I may be alone in this, but we should encourage as much private charitable giving as possible, government be damned. I was in an argument once with someone who was criticizing the US for not giving as big a percentage of GDP in foreign aid as most industrialized nations, only to point out that with private charitable donations to foreign non-profit and humanitarian organizations the US puts the entire world to shame with foreign aid if it includes such private aid. I'm sure similar conclusions could be made of domestic aid.

If a person who has money wishes to direct his money to certain charities rather than let the government decide which social program his taxable portion would go to, by all means let the moneyholder/wealthy person decide. Charitable donations to charitable causes should never be construed or defined by the government as a tax loophole that needs closing. Ever.

First, it would be transferring to our elected officials, not the "oligarchical bureaucratic/legislative few". If you don't like what they're doing, vote them out. That's how representative democracy works.

Second, you're assuming that all non-profit entities are charitable in some way, which is certainly not the case. Pretty much all charitable organizations are non-profit. Not all non-profit organizations are charitable.

Generally, I'm never going to agree with giving even more power to the powerful for them to influence policy outside of the political process. Seems undemocratic to me. Remember, this is talking about making donations above and beyond $250,000 per year not tax deductible.

But would you agree that giving to charity simply so it affects your bottom line is a little disingenuous?

I know the average joe does it all the time, but with big corporations we're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars multiplied many times over.

Answering a question not asked of me. There are two types of charity. The one that upper class groups, and individuals use is institutional charity. Everything from their college, to the arts fit in this category.

As I mentioned earlier, I like nothing better than a compromise, so take these charitable contributions out, but leave all others as they are.

The amount that the upper class give to the poor-based charities is well documented, and a dirty dog shame.

You are right that most file as individuals. I've never had a small business, but don't most financial advisors and business advisors recommend that you incorporate into at least an LLC once you higher an employee? That way, you can seperate your personal incomes from business operations and shield your personal assets from litigation, corporate bankruptcy, and other catastrophies.

If most people aren't doing this, perhaps we need to educate them so they can more full take advantage of the tax credits and incentives available to them as an incorporated entity.

I have been confused by this as well. If one files taxes for a small business as an individual and the income is in excess of $250,000, is that not the pre-tax take home pay at the end of the day (as opposed to total gross income before expenses?)? I assume profit put back into the business in the form of employees, equipment, benefits, etc. is not included, but maybe I am missing something. Otherwise, it would seem to be a tremendous disadvantage to the business owner to file this way at all (as boiker noted above).

But, if that is the case, and $250,000 is the gross take home pay (after the types of expenses I mentioned above), then, yeah, I think those folks need to pay a fare tax share.

Also, the percentage I have heard that are filing this way are all over the map. I read 90 percent, and I also read 65 percent. This is a confusing issue for me that I would like to understand better.

First, it would be transferring to our elected officials, not the "oligarchical bureaucratic/legislative few". If you don't like what they're doing, vote them out. That's how representative democracy works.

Second, you're assuming that all non-profit entities are charitable in some way, which is certainly not the case. Pretty much all charitable organizations are non-profit. Not all non-profit organizations are charitable.

Generally, I'm never going to agree with giving even more power to the powerful for them to influence policy outside of the political process. Seems undemocratic to me. Remember, this is talking about making donations above and beyond $250,000 per year not tax deductible.

What is it about the $250,000 that makes that the cutoff point? It seems arbitrary.

Whether a person is economically powerful at the alleged expense of a few or politically powerful at the expense of a few is irrelevant. It still transfers control of a person's assets from the individual to a select few. A person's wealth, even the taxable portion of it, does not belong to the state. It is due to the state. The government are stewards of individuals' taxes, not the other way around. This all goes back to individualism vs. collectivism.

Also, representative democracy works better when such decisions are made as local as possible. That is also how the Constitution outlines the powers of the federal government. I've posted on this several times before, so I'll leave it at that.

Originally posted by btrage

But would you agree that giving to charity simply so it affects your bottom line is a little disingenuous?

I know the average joe does it all the time, but with big corporations we're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars multiplied many times over.

It may be slightly disingenuous, but it may not. Ultimately, I don't think it's mine nor the government's place to judge people on their motivations. Motivation might be argued as evidence for/against actions, but the government shouldn't judge motivations. That's dangerously Orwellian.

Riiight. How are them tax cuts working now? Creating jobs not really. The loosening of credit did all that. Where was bush when he checked out in summer and fall? By doing nothing he made things worse.

They worked in the early 2000s. But now they're not working because the Democrats repealed them and didn't create more. Instead of $1000 rebate checks to spur the economy, we're getting like 5 extra dollars in our paycheck which will do absolutely nothing to help the economy.

What is it about the $250,000 that makes that the cutoff point? It seems arbitrary.

It is arbitrary and just happens to be the number thrown out there at the moment.

Whether a person is economically powerful at the alleged expense of a few or politically powerful at the expense of a few is irrelevant. It still transfers control of a person's assets from the individual to a select few. A person's wealth, even the taxable portion of it, does not belong to the state. It is due to the state. The government are stewards of individuals' taxes, not the other way around. This all goes back to individualism vs. collectivism.

The difference is that elected officials serve at the will of the people that elected them. Currently the government is not stewards of individuals' taxes if the individual deems a non-profit worthy of that money first. The taxes on that money are then not due to the state and the money that would have been due to the state is given directly to the non-profit. This may be good much of the time, but other times not so much. (There are bazillions of good, bad, and ugly non-profits in San Francisco).

Also, representative democracy works better when such decisions are made as local as possible. That is also how the Constitution outlines the powers of the federal government. I've posted on this several times before, so I'll leave it at that.

Sure, perhaps, and I've agreed with you before - however, it needs to go all the way before I support a move towards the greater federalism that we had pre-Civil War. It also doesn't make what we have currently something other than a representative democratic republic though.

They worked in the early 2000s. But now they're not working because the Democrats repealed them and didn't create more. Instead of $1000 rebate checks to spur the economy, we're getting like 5 extra dollars in our paycheck which will do absolutely nothing to help the economy.

History lesson: In the early 2000's, the lowering of interest rates began, which made the cost of borrowing significantly lower for all consumer and businesses sparked the uptick in business coupled with income taxes cuts (to which Bush did at the beginning of his term to head off a "cooling" economy, than in 2001 to ditch the dot-com recession). However it is those cuts, coupled with billions and billions of dollars in excess spending balloned the budget. Happened to Regan too. Who fixed the probelm? Geroge H.W. did in the early 90's by guess what, raising taxes, yet most of our republican friends tend to forget that (BTW for what its worth, i think George H.W wasn't a bad president, just fumbled the election), and eventually Barrack is going to have too.

The deomcrats haven't repleaed any of the tax cuts. They are letting them expire. There is a difference.

Check your math, it is actually about 12 bucks per week, multiplied by by how many weeks in a year and you get more than $1000. So if you choose, save it and show Barrack and the demos where to stick there borrowing. If your going to bring some rhetoric, at least check some facts at the door.

They're doing terrible. But I guess I really don't expect anything less. The country's being driven into the ground by the Democrats, ever since they took control of Congress in 2007, with their excessive spending, power, and control. Since when does the federal government succeed at anything? So why give them more control and put our faith and trust in them? All these big government solutions are complete and utter failures...always have been, always will. And I'm not denying that Bush spent too much either, including in Iraq...but hey, at least he was smart enough to give people tax cuts to keep the economy moving and promote job creation through business tax cuts and focusing on small businesses.

THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING

It seems like Michealskis trolling poll will disappoint him as it mimics the national polls.

I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(

They worked in the early 2000s. But now they're not working because the Democrats repealed them and didn't create more. Instead of $1000 rebate checks to spur the economy, we're getting like 5 extra dollars in our paycheck which will do absolutely nothing to help the economy.

How can the tax cuts "not be working" if they haven't expired yet? Talk about putting the cart before the horse - this makes no sense as an argument for why the economy is stalled and people aren't spending...

Also, its the Bush administration that set the expiration date. If they wanted them (or thought it was reasonable) for them to be permanent, why did they not structure it that way in the first place?

These tax cuts were only tenable, even by the Republican administration' own admission as recently as two years ago, if the economy continued to show strong growth (among other things).

Monday, February 5, 2007

The budget that President Bush will submit to Congress today shows the federal deficit falling in each of the next four years and would produce a $61 billion surplus in 2012, administration officials said. But to get there, Bush is counting on strong economic growth, diminishing costs in the Iraq war and tight domestic spending to offset the cost of his tax cuts.

Well, the realities are a good deal different now. Does it still seem a responsible course to extend the cuts? Even McCain proposed I would get less money back than both Bush and Obama. The realities have completely changed and are not in line at all with the Bush administration's expectations. Its time for our country to get realistic not only about immediate needs, but also the long term outlook with respect to our deficit.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I still expect to get at least $1000 from the Obama tax plan (not, "like, 5 dollars"), so the difference to me, and I think most Americans, will not be appreciable.

History lesson: In the early 2000's, the lowering of interest rates began, which made the cost of borrowing significantly lower for all consumer and businesses sparked the uptick in business coupled with income taxes cuts (to which Bush did at the beginning of his term to head off a "cooling" economy, than in 2001 to ditch the dot-com recession). However it is those cuts, coupled with billions and billions of dollars in excess spending balloned the budget. Happened to Regan too. Who fixed the probelm? Geroge H.W. did in the early 90's by guess what, raising taxes, yet most of our republican friends tend to forget that (BTW for what its worth, i think George H.W wasn't a bad president, just fumbled the election), and eventually Barrack is going to have too.

The deomcrats haven't repleaed any of the tax cuts. They are letting them expire. There is a difference.

Actually, I think it is the wars that ballooned the budget more than anything, but which, IMO, were necessary. However, I think better management and fiscal responsibility could have reduced those numbers, especially in regards to Iraqi infrastructure. And George H.W. didn't really need to raise taxes. Things were naturally getting better and the deficit would have been erased in Clinton's term anyway without the tax hikes, because the economy was continually booming since the Reagan years and people were making more and thus government was receiving more. Sure, the surplus may have taken a year or two more to be achieved, but it probably would have gotten done.

Check your math, it is actually about 12 bucks per week, multiplied by by how many weeks in a year and you get more than $1000. So if you choose, save it and show Barrack and the demos where to stick there borrowing. If your going to bring some rhetoric, at least check some facts at the door.

Last time I checked, 12 x 52 = 624, so even if it is $12 every week, it's well under $1000 a year. Also, last time I checked, $12 was for the average American worker. Well, I'm not the average American worker, I'm an intern, so I'm expecting well less, unless Barack is really giving me the same amount back as someone making $50,000.

Maybe, if they'd quit wasing their money on corporate jets, welfare, and funding for cow manure control and give the money to the American people who need it more and know how to spend it better than the government, maybe the economy would actually recover. The government just needs to learn how to leave things alone. Everytime they tinker with something, things just end up getting worse.

Originally posted by wahday

How can the tax cuts "not be working" if they haven't expired yet? Talk about putting the cart before the horse - this makes no sense as an argument for why the economy is stalled and people aren't spending...

Also, its the Bush administration that set the expiration date. If they wanted them (or thought it was reasonable) for them to be permanent, why did they not structure it that way in the first place?

These tax cuts were only tenable, even by the Republican administration' own admission as recently as two years ago, if the economy continued to show strong growth (among other things).

The tax cuts aren't working, because there are none. There's nothing to evaluate here. The problem is, we haven't had a significantly-sized tax rebate in a long time. And letting the Bush tax cuts "expire" will only make things worse. Who are you concerned about? The government's needs or the American families that have to foot the bill? At the end of the day, I side with the American people. Maybe instead of the government writing itself a check for $700B, they could write it to us. But no, that'd be too simple and it'd empower the people too much...can't have that.

And I think there are rules in place which prevent the tax cuts from being permanent. Or they may have structured them that way because they didn't forsee this recession and thought a surplus could be achieved some day. But really, I don't know. Why don't you ask George Bush why he didn't strucutre it that way in the first place?